First Solar still accepting applications for Nov. 22 job fair

After experiencing some difficult times in recent years, Perrysburg manufacturer First Solar is on the rebound again and has announced plans to hire 120 new employees in an effort to meet increased demand.

The company will host a job fair at its Perrysburg plant, located at 28101 Cedar Park Blvd., from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Nov. 22 in an effort to attract potential employees.

To attend the fair, applicants must first apply online using the link http://bit.ly/1oAKVOW and then select the Perrysburg location. Next, click on “Manufacturing” under the Job Families category. After that, choose “Manufacturing Technician,” which has the ID No. 32037.

The plant, which currently employs 1,100 people and supplies four production lines, is looking for people with at least one year of experience in the manufacturing industry, specifically with knowledge of chemical, mechanical and electrical operations. The new hires would be assigned to two new production lines that are currently being installed and engineered to make approximately two million solar panels each year, enough to generate roughly 190 megawatts (MW) of power.

With revenue that topped $3.3 billion in 2012, Tempe, Arizona-based First Solar has a major presence in the global market, supplying photovoltaic modules for businesses located all over the world. The company’s Perrysburg plant completed a expansion project four years ago.

First Solar has seen steady progress in terms of its electrical output, increasing its total capacity from 25 MW in 2005 to 2,376 MW in 2011. That increase earned the company the No. 1 spot in Solar Power World magazine’s 2012 and 2013 rankings of solar contractors. Five years ago, First Solar became the first solar-panel manufacturer to lower its costs to less than $1 per watt.

Historically, one of the problems with solar energy has been its cost. For years, solar energy has struggled to compete with more established forms of energy, like coal and natural gas. But a report released last month from German global banking company Deutsche Bank indicates that “solar electricity is on track to be as cheap, if not cheaper, than average electricity-bill prices in 47 U.S. states” by 2016.

First Solar announces latest thin-film modules

First Solar Inc. announced the release of its most advanced thin-film photovoltaic module Dec. 13 at its headquarters in Tempe, Ariz.

The Series 3 FS-392, rated at 92.5 watts, maintain all existing IEC certifications and UL listings for the Series 3 family, including UL listing for 1,000-volt solar systems, according to the company.

First Solar began producing the FS-392 modules earlier this quarter at its production facilities in Perrysburg and other locations, according to Alan Bernheimer, public relations director at First Solar. The company has shipped the modules for deployment at various solar project sites, but he did not have any details on those projects.

“The FS-392 demonstrates the success of First Solar’s R&D investment to drive higher and higher module conversion efficiencies into production,” Tom Kuster, vice president of product management and system technology at First Solar, stated in the press release about the announcement.

One of the drivers of First Solar’s module performance advantage over crystalline silicon solar modules is a lower temperature coefficient, delivering higher energy yields at elevated operating temperatures typical of utility-scale power plants in sunny regions, according to the company.

First Solar is a leading global provider of photovoltaic solar systems which use its advanced thin-film modules. The company claims its integrated power plant solutions deliver an economically attractive alternative to fossil-fuel electricity generation.

First Solar employs about 1,200 people at its Perrysburg production plant.

Sun Burn 3: Finkbeiner: Bell, RGP, Port ‘dropped the ball’ on solar

Between 2005, when it began publishing, and June 30, 2012, Toledo Free Press, a weekly newspaper, published 97 articles with the keywords “solar industry.” Between Jan. 1, 1997, and June 30, 2012, The Blade, a daily newspaper, published 388 articles with those same keywords.

In the beginning, the two publications were almost of a singular voice on the topic.

In those 485 newspaper stories, the print media regularly turned to national, state, county and City of Toledo politicians and candidates — including Toledo’s mayor, an Ohio senator and House of Representatives member, the University of Toledo president, a UT president emeritus, a local broadcast TV news co-anchor, community leaders from the Regional Growth Partnership and the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, and local business men and women — for their perspective on Northwest Ohio’s solar industry.

Starting in 1997 and peaking in 2007, nearly everyone interviewed and everyone who submitted a guest column voiced support for the solar industry and the hope that it would become the salvation of the economic woes the area faced.

Some guest columnists proposed strategies they believed would ensure success. Others prodded Toledoans to develop attitudes that promoted the city and focused on its strengths. Many suggested that Toledo could become the solar hub, at that time referred to as “the next Silicon Valley” of the United States.

The solar industry enjoyed the unbridled support of almost everyone in Northwest Ohio.

Who were those people?

What did they have to say?

And, enjoying the 20/20 vision that comes with hindsight, what do some of those people have to say now?

Mayoral approval

Focused on building Toledo’s industrial base as well as promoting the city as one of America’s best, then-Mayor Carty Finkbeiner embraced the solar industry and all the potential it offered the city. If ever there was a political advocate for the solar industry, it was Finkbeiner.

In September 2007, Finkbeiner announced Toledo would work with the University of Toledo to develop the Ohio Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development, a program the Lucas County Improvement Corporation predicted would pay huge dividends to Northwest Ohio’s economy.

Two months later, Finkbeiner wrote a column published in Toledo Free Press, declaring June 18, 2007, a symbolic day in Toledo’s history as wrecking balls knocked down the smokestacks at the Toledo Jeep Plant and Toledo began its transition from smokestacks and pollution to clean technology and alternative fuels. Finkbeiner said the solar industry, rooted in cleaning up and preserving the environment, would be Toledo’s economic future.

In April 2008, Finkbeiner touted Toledo’s foray into alternative energy, proclaiming that Toledo was “one of six solar energy capitals in the world,” projected to have 3 million jobs in the solar economy during the next 20 years.

Carty FInkbeiner at the mayoral desk in One Government Center in July 2009.

Even as he faced the threat of a recall election in December 2008, Finkbeiner took the opportunity to plug the solar industry.

Refusing to let the recall petition effort demoralize him, Finkbeiner publicly suggested that Take Back Toledo, the group of opponents that organized the petition drive to unseat him during his 2006-09 term, should “also support us in working to bring alternative energy jobs and companies to Toledo.”

Recalling those days during a July 31 interview, Finkbeiner said, “Those Take Back Toledo people wanted change and people who are excited for change are very, very good for America. You need critics. If everybody agrees, you’re not getting the other opinion.

“I was challenging them. ‘Let’s use your energy and get behind the alternative energy thing. Put it into that, and we’ll move forward together.’

“I was just trying to challenge, as I always do,” Finkbeiner said. “That’s just my personality, to say, ‘OK. That’s your perspective. Why don’t we get behind the alternative energy thing and we’ll be working together on something. You put your energy, and I’ll put my energy, and two will be better than one. Let’s get at it.’ ”

A source of momentum Finkbeiner pointed to in December 2008 was Toledo’s growing reputation in the national media as a center of solar-energy innovation and manufacturing. Finkbeiner took tremendous pleasure in January 2009 when Foreign Direct Investment magazine named Toledo the “Most Business Friendly City in North America.” He said at the time that the national recognition must motivate the community to increase “support of growing advanced technology businesses by encouraging an entrepreneurial mindset and funding research that fuels growth.”

Bell at the helm

When Mike Bell moved into the mayor’s office Jan. 4, 2010, beating Democrat Keith Wilkowski by a margin of 2 percent of the popular vote, the local print media reported he would not follow Finkbeiner’s lead as a solar energy advocate.

In an interview July 25, Mayor Mike Bell said he did not choose to not make the solar industry a part of his agenda. When he took over in January 2010, the City of Toledo was $48 million dollars in debt. He felt it most important to find a way to get Toledo out of the red.

One avenue was to investigate the possibilities that Asian investors had an interest in Toledo.

Bell said that since the city faced a $48 million debt, he didn’t even think to consider Finkbeiner’s solar push. His focus was the $48 million debt, not the outgoing mayor’s agenda.

Mayor Mike Bell

Bell said the solar industry was already established in Northwest Ohio, and he didn’t think focusing on it would bring the financial solution Toledo needed. In his judgment, pursuing Asian investor interest would pay quicker dividends.

“When you ask me about this two-and-a-half years later, I would point out the fact that we’re out of debt and actually have a surplus in the city budget,” Bell said. “I’d say that’s proof I made the right decision.”

Bell said he thinks the solar industry is, and will continue to be, an important part of Toledo. However, he says it has issues to solve, like making solar panels affordable for homeowners who want to install them in their homes. He feels confident the solar industry will continue to be a part of Toledo, and now that the city has a surplus in its budget, he may have the luxury to look at other things. Bell said he most needed to improve the city’s budget issues, and he’s pleased that he’s done that.

“I say, ‘Finkbeiner pooh-poohs that explanation. He didn’t have the deficit he claims to have had,’ ” Finkbeiner said July 31. “Let’s just be very blunt. First, there was no $48 million deficit. That was a Mike Bell, Steve Herwat (deputy mayor of operations) made-up figure. I can prove it. I’ve been to The Blade. They all didn’t want to get into it.

“His debt was exactly what my debt was the last year I was mayor (2009). The bottom fell out of the American economy and the Toledo economy. It was in October 2008, one month before the presidential election.

“The American automobile industry is very relevant. The American automobile industry was fleecing Toledo. We dropped $28 million in anticipated revenue from 2007 to the end of 2008. To be precise, when I began my last year as mayor in 2009, it was $27.7 million debt that I had to make up during the year 2009.

“I didn’t make it all up. I made all of it up but about $4.5 million. So that $27.7 million that I had as a deficit to make up in 2009 was also what Mr. Bell had, because the economy was just as flat in 2010. He had $27.7 million plus $4.5 million that I did not balance the budget with (for a total deficit of

$32.2 million, not $48 million).

“The automobile industry is what brought the present black-and-white situation back. That’s what did it. Period. End of discussion. There’s no question.

“And the casino. The Jeep plant and the casino both have put the coffers back in respectful [shape]. No budget cutting. No fewer and no more bodies working for the city.

“And, secondly, [making up the deficit is] no explanation to running off to China thrice.

“And at the moment, I don’t know of one single job that’s been created in Northwest Ohio as a result of all those trips to China. Not a single job,” FInkbeiner said. “If you find one and point it out, I’ll accept your correction.”

In Dec. 2011, however, Bell did publicly support a landfill reclamation project that had the potential to substantially boost Toledo’s credentials as a solar-energy hub.

OCI Solar Toledo City LLC, a partnership of two international energy companies, OCI Solar Power and CME Energy, invested an estimated $20 million into plans to install an 80-acre solar-energy field on top of capped landfills in North Toledo next to I-75, located close to Chrysler’s Toledo Assembly Complex.

The project, which was predicted to generate enough electricity to power as many as 7,000 homes upon completion in 2013, was to be the largest solar-energy installation in Toledo.

In late 2011, plans were for OCI Solar Toledo City to also lease landfills from the City of Toledo for about $20,000 a year. Reports suggested that Toledo Public Power might buy energy generated from these solar fields and resell it. The end-users of that power could be local businesses and residents.

Bell said the project was a common-sense use of land that otherwise would not be redeveloped.

“It’s land that we couldn’t do anything else with,” Bell said, “so it’s nice that we’ve found something positive to do on that piece of property that will help our community.”

Democrats in charge

Democrat Ted Strickland was governor of Ohio when the solar energy industry took off in 2007. Strickland relinquished the office in 2011 after Republican John Kasich defeated him in the Nov. 2, 2010, election, with 49.09 percent of the vote to Strickland’s 47.04 percent.

Under Strickland, the Toledo-area solar energy companies flourished. Strickland visited Toledo often in the late 2000s to take part in ceremonies, such as when more than 1,400 panels made in Perrysburg’s First Solar plant were installed on the Toledo Museum of Art’s rooftop. The panels were meant to help the museum generate enough power to handle one-fifth of its energy needs.

A portion of the installation project was funded by the state through an Ohio Department of Development grant. Strickland joined local political and business leaders the day of the installation ceremony, heaping praise on the project.

“This is but one example of what can be done to make our state more progressive [and] to make us less dependent on outside supplies for our energy needs,” Strickland said. “We will look back maybe 10, 20 years from now, and we will realize the significance of what’s happening with our economy today.”

While in office, Strickland supported an alternative energy agenda, specifically backing Ohio’s Senate Bill 221 which required 25 percent of all Ohio’s energy to be generated through alternative means by 2025. That bill became law in May 2009.

In a Toledo Free Press guest column, April 4, 2008, Karl Rundgren, then managing editor and co-anchor of FOX Toledo News, praised the national attention Toledo had received for its focus on green technology that same week when CNN ran a report that featured First Solar and Xunlight.

Rundgren foreshadowed the 2009 mayoral recall drive when he pointed out a warning in that same CNN report.

Ohio Governor Ted Strickland speaks with Norm Nitschke.

“These jobs are developing, but they’ll go to the place that is prepared for them,” Rundgren wrote. “Communities that delay and debate might find themselves doing without, watching as other cities become the capitals of alternative energy. While Toledo is doing well now, I worry that we could end up our own worst enemy. Our history of territorial griping, finger pointing and baseless threats could lead to a pathetic squabble that costs time and, ultimately, jobs.”

Republicans in charge

When Kasich took office, his Republican-led administration criticized Strickland and former Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher for how Ohio’s $8.2 billion in federal stimulus money from the President Barack Obama-supported American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was dispersed. Although Kasich never publicly criticized Obama, members of his administration questioned Strickland’s relationship with executives at Toledo’s Willard & Kelsey Solar Group LLC, suggesting that the $23,400 worth of 2010 campaign contributions by four Willard & Kelsey executives were improper and indicated favoritism from Strickland.

On March 10, 2010, State Sen. Mark Wagoner joined fellow Republicans in criticizing Strickland. They called for the governor to be more open to “game-changing investments,” such as the rejected proposal offered by local solar company executive Norm Johnston, chairman of nonprofit group Ohio Advanced Energy, vice chairman of Germany’s Calyxo GmbH and chief executive of Calyxo’s North American subsidiary, to use state funding to cover 30 former industrial sites with solar panels.

Johnston had complained about the Strickland administration’s rejection of his $750 million proposal to build 30 solar fields on cleaned-up industrial sites throughout Ohio.

Johnston claimed Strickland was to blame for Ohioans not having thousands more jobs in solar industry in 2010.

Strickland countered, saying he put emphasis on solar and other renewable energies as two of the most exciting prospects for reversing what he said felt like a decade-long recession in Ohio. Strickland said his approach would have resulted in thousands of solar jobs for Ohioans. Then-gubernatorial candidate Kasich criticized Strickland over what Kasich said was the disappearance of some 300,000 jobs during Strickland’s administration.

Strickland asserted that his solar policy adjustments would have created more jobs sooner had Republicans not opposed legislation that would establish a market for solar products.

Republicans reacted angrily to the suggestion they opposed any job-creating legislation.

“We passed Senate Bill 221 … that moved advanced alternative energy further down the road in Ohio, and that was a very bipartisan effort to do so,” Rep. Randy Gardner said. “The strongest champion on SB 221, I think, was at the time [former Republican House leader] Jon Husted.”

One Republican’s strategy

The animosity between Ohio’s Democratic and Republican parties escalated in April when Jeff Jacobson, former Republican lawmaker and current secretary-treasurer of The Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (OAQDA), moved to turn over three Toledo-area solar companies to the attorney general’s collections department for failing to make scheduled payments on millions in low-interest state loans issued in 2010.

“I don’t know why companies would think it’s OK to take our money and not pay,” Jacobson told media April 15. “Us doing nothing is not a good reaction to something like that.”

Other OAQDA members did not support Jacobson’s motion. Jacobson acknowledged that he didn’t expect his motion to garner support, but said he made it to send a message from Kasich’s administration to Ohio companies that the OAQDA is keeping detailed records and expects to be paid back the money it loans.

Katie Sabatino, an Ohio Department of Development spokesperson, said such drastic measures may become common if businesses “don’t live up to the commitments they promised [because] we’re going to take appropriate action. We want to make sure we’re being business friendly in letting them repay their loans, but still being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.”

Dean Monske

Willard & Kelsey Solar and Xunlight Corp. have made interest-only payments on Advanced Energy loans of $5.1 and $4 million, respectively. This despite the fact that their loan agreements required them to make principal payments. Willard & Kelsey’s $5.1 million loan and a separate $5 million loan from the Department of Development will come due Sept. 30.

On April 15, Mossie Murphy, Willard & Kelsey’s chief financial officer, insisted that the firm never misused state funds and always complied with state law. He said private funding, which had also been scrutinized in the local print media, is used at the discretion of Willard & Kelsey’s executives and not subject to public review.

“We view the state money as sacred, and the state loans we fully intend to pay,” Murphy told media.

The third firm, Buckeye Silicon of Toledo, has not made a $2,400-a-month interest payment on its $1.4 million loan in 2012, although the firm was supposed to begin paying $25,000 a month on principal starting May 2012.

Educational leadership

Toledoans appreciated the notoriety then-Gov. Strickland brought their city when he christened Northwest Ohio an official hub of solar energy research and innovation, on July 1, 2010. Many saw the ceremony as an economic-development coming-of-age party intended to boost investment and create local jobs in alternative energy.

Strickland’s ceremony confirmed something that Dan Johnson, then-provost and chief operating officer of Zayed University, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and UT president emeritus, already knew. A year earlier, Johnson expressed that same pride and delight when he saw UT and Xunlight accept leadership roles in the international solar energy industry by representing Toledo at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi, UAE.

Johnson encouraged more members of the Toledo business and educational communities to attend future summits.

In a Toledo Free Press guest column Feb. 13, 2009, Johnson wrote, “To compete, we must have a strategy that recognizes and takes into account what is happening globally as well as nationally and locally. Participating in the World Future Energy Summit was a good move and one that should be repeated every year.”

Frank Calzonetti, UT’s vice president of research and development, praised Johnson’s strategy, saying UT’s decision to attend the summit spoke volumes about Toledo’s commitment to the solar energy industry.

“Our presence at this meeting sends a message that we are a global player and gives us an opportunity to show leading companies, investors and government officials why Toledo is a good place for research collaboration, business location and investment in renewable energy,” Calzonetti said.

More than three years later, Johnson said he has been privileged to attend the past three World Future Energy Summit conventions and “see the global input into the development of solar energy. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of companies worldwide involved in solar energy research and development.” That exposure has convinced Johnson that “we must collaborate together.”

“What we’ve seen happen in Toledo [these past four years] in terms of response to specific solar industry companies is the result of a shift of policy decisions,” he said.

“The enthusiasm we saw here in the United States in 2008 produced a considerable investment and a large number of startups. As those start-ups developed and matured, the market and business cycles took over.

“Look at the auto industry as an example. Almost, if not all, the start-ups 75 years ago are gone now,” Johnson said. “The industry grew, and as technology developed the startups of the early 20th century gave way to other companies.

“The shake-up we see happening in the solar industry could have and should have been expected. It’s a natural process in the business cycle. If you look at it from a global perspective, it’s a pattern we see in all new industries.

“It’s also very important to recognize that demand for solar energy is affected by policy. We’ve been strong on the technical development side. We need to be as strong on policy issues.

“Also, although we have been strong on things like technological development, we have not been strong on marketing supply. Some companies and some countries have done it better than others. We have much to learn about how to market solar energy.”

Johnson insists “there is still a lot of potential for Toledo. However, we need to have strong leadership in this area. We need leadership. Where will it come from? That will be interesting to see.”

Finkbeiner said the leaders for economic development in this region are the University of Toledo and Bowling Green State University, the Regional Growth Partnership (RGP), the Port Authority and the mayor.

“The University of Toledo has been a tremendous leader because it has the wherewithal and the staff to assist with the research and development aspect of things as they did with Harold McMaster.”

In discussing Willard & Kelsey’s continuing research and development, including 3-by-6 and 4-by-8 solar panels and higher-than-industry-standard, energy-efficient solar windows, Michael Cicak praised UT’s researchers and their work with his firm.

“You can’t sell the University of Toledo short,” Cicak said July 19. “They have some damn good people who are working very, very diligently with us with some projects.”

Cicak, chairman and CEO of Willard & Kelsey, was an original partner with Harold McMaster in the pioneering developmental work UT did with GlassTech Solar in 1984 and Solar Cells, Inc. in 1990. Solar Cells eventually became First Solar after being bought by True North Partners, LLC in 1999 and renamed First Solar, Inc.

Community leadership

Finkbeiner said he is particularly disappointed in what he called a lack of leadership from the RGP and the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, organizations that he said played a major role in promoting the solar industry from 2006-09.

As an example, Finkbeiner pointed to Steven Weathers, then-president and CEO of the Regional Growth Partnership, who came out on June 8, 2007, in strong support of the University of Toledo’s Northwest Ohio Science and Technology Corridor as a way to diversify and stabilize the region’s economy.

“I see it as the branding of an area like Silicon Valley where we can bring together all the components of economic development within Northwest Ohio, becoming a center of innovative technology in addition to automotive manufacturing,” Weathers said.

The RGP is responsible for marketing and promoting Northwest Ohio. The Port Authority aims to generate transportation and economic development in the Toledo area. Finkbeiner said both have “dropped the ball.”

In RGP’s defense, its president and CEO, Dean Monske, said that through RGP’s editorial marketing program, “We continuously communicate with national and international media, promoting our regional strengths, assets and success stories.

“When we began pitching our regional solar story in 2007, we were fortunate to catch the media at a time when ‘green’ industry was the hot topic. What resulted were dozens of stories about this region in top-tier media outlets across the world. Today, we still pitch this story on a national level, but most media interest comes from industrial trade publications.

“Most growth in the local solar industry has taken place in the creation of new startup companies. The lead entity in working directly with technology startups is Rocket Ventures, LLC, a venture capital organization created as a joint venture in 2011 through the RGP and University of Toledo Innovation Enterprises,” Monske said.

Prior to the joint venture, Rocket Ventures operated directly under the RGP, where it worked with technology-based startups, including solar companies, Monske said.

“Undoubtedly, the global economic downturn has hampered growth in solar,” Monske said. “However, with our core capacity in this industry, combined with our regional competitive assets spanning the traditional sectors such as workforce, geographic location, education, transportation and quality of life, Northwest Ohio can maintain and enhance its standing as a major player in the industry.”

The ultimate responsibility

Finkbeiner also pointed to the mayor, whom he said “remains the most important” leader in the region’s economic development.

“Those three organizations (UT, the RGP and the Port Authority), and that one individual, is where the responsibility lies. The glory goes to them if we gain and grow jobs, and the responsibility is on their shoulders if we don’t do that,” Finkbeiner said.

“I believe that one, if not the most important reason [for the decline of the solar industry in this area], is all of the attention, excitement, glory and journalism following the very early Mike Bell-tenure trip to China. It took us off the message. It took us off focus. We began to look at the relationships with China, not the rest of the world, as the single most important economic development initiative. And I haven’t heard hardly a word about alternative energy since that China topic was introduced.

“In this man’s opinion, the Chinese have not created hardly a job in the United States of America. They’re investors in real estate in this country. They aren’t manufacturers. They aren’t doing major technology investments. They’re basically real estate investors — a hotel in Downtown Toledo, the Marina District, and a docks property in East Toledo — but the jobs are not a part of their mission.

“Since we got so involved with that China thing, I haven’t heard, read hardly a word about alternative energy and its significance.

“Some region of the United States is going to be a major player in alternative energy programs, starting with research and development, the manufacture at a cost-efficient scale of alternative energy. The world is overheating. It’s becoming more and more known to even the doubting Thomases, and we can’t continue to be held hostage to dictators in other parts of the world who don’t really share our belief in democracy, in freedom, in respect for women.

“And so just to get their oil, we sell our principles and our very important constitutional guarantees of freedom and opportunity. We sell those out just to get oil and support dictators that are harsh, unfair to significant parts of the population.

“But we, within the confines of the continental United States, need to be that region that isn’t guided by gray skies, as you now know.”

“I didn’t know this until the last two or three or four years ago when I asked the question, ‘Are we going to be foreclosed upon to the Arizonas and the Californias because of their supposedly clear skies and sunshine?’

“The response that I got was, ‘No. It has nothing to do with that or First Solar wouldn’t have picked that site in Toledo to locate.’

“So I’d say the sun is still rising on alternative energy options,” he said.

“I hope that alternative energy advocates, including Northwest Ohioans like Marcy Kaptur, Bob Latta and Sherrod Brown, will continue … not just with whatever the popularity quote of the month is. We have got to be consistently keeping our eye on any development opportunities in the field of alternative energy that we might be able to welcome to Northwest Ohio, using the resources at UT.”

Sun Burn 2: Global changes slow solar growth

They were living the good life. Solar energy companies were posting impressive stock gains, successfully winning county, state and national grants and securing local and state loans. Money flowed freely.

Then, with little warning, it all changed. The solar industry, with its unlimited growth potential, began to struggle. Local, state, national and international circumstances changed.

European countries failed to renew their solar energy subsidy programs, Asia entered the production process and federal, state and local political party leadership changed.

Global demand dropped and the increase in panel-producing companies and factories glutted the marketplace with efficient solar panels at significantly cheaper prices than just 12 months earlier.

The drop in panel prices globally saw U.S. solar energy company stock prices plummet almost as quickly as they had risen from 2007 through 2008. Companies responded by restructuring their organizations and tweaking their mission statements, CEOs stepped aside or were fired, companies scrambled to expand their traditional markets and cut their workforces, and one company began to introduce new, innovative products using solar energy to power cellphones, campers, boats and military equipment.

Scientists, engineers and technicians in research and development departments pushed their creative limits to develop new, more energy-efficient technologies. They had to increase solar panel gigawatts cheaper and more efficiently.

What happened to the solar energy industry?

Simply speaking, life happened.

Changing technology

As early as May 31, 2009, reports surfaced that the once-rich European market was quickly disappearing. Continued success for solar panel-making corporations meant deciding whether to continue with the traditional 6-inch cell-shaped wafers made of polysilicon — an expensive man-made crystal requiring a time-consuming process — or shift to the thin-film process of applying a thin coating of chemicals to glass or other surfaces.

The four Greater Toledo-area companies were all using the newer thin-film technology methods by 2009.

The thin-film process requires fewer raw materials and is cheaper than traditional wafer panels, which rely on polysilicon. In 2009, the cost of polysilicon, the main raw material in traditional wafer panels, rose as high as $500 a kilogram (about 2.2 pounds).

Although thin-film technology advocates were in agreement that cost prohibited the use of polysilicon, they differed on which chemical coatings would yield the most efficient panels suitable for mass production. One coating First Solar was using, cadmium, caused significant concern among research and development teams. Critics cautioned against using cadmium because it could cause cancer, although officials at firms using the cadmium technology, including First Solar, insisted that their production methods guarded against cancer-causing environments.

Thin-film technology advocates pointed to significant production time advantages of cadmium. The cadmium coating process took much less time and First Solar’s process was much more cost-effective because it used only one percent of the chemical compound used in traditional wafer panels.

By 2011, cost concerns won. The technologies of the Toledo-area solar firms set them apart from all other solar companies globally; First Solar, Willard & Kelsey and Xunlight were all using the thin-film production process, even though, at that time, it was a relatively small segment of the overall industry.

Today, solar industry experts are questioning the wisdom of the Toledo-area firms’ decisions.

In a research note published May 4, Joe Osha, global coordinator for solar power for Bank of America Merrill Lynch, wrote, “A year ago, the question was when the inevitable recovery in thin-film would occur. Now it’s whether thin-film solar is viable as a business at all.”

China’s response

Worker at First Solar.

First Solar, the global leader in the newer thin-film production process, faced another challenge when China entered the solar industry business. In December 2011, Mike Ahearn, First Solar’s then-interim CEO, offered his observations about the supply of solar panels in a conference call with investors.

“Global production has effectively tripled over the last three years, as you know,” Ahearn said. “Two factors have enabled this to occur. First, entry barriers for manufacturing [the traditional 6-inch cell-shaped wafers made of polysilicon] evaporated several years ago when equipment suppliers effectively integrated process technology into turnkey production equipment. This enabled relatively inexperienced and unskilled operators to quickly enter the supply chain and led to an explosion of production capacity in China and elsewhere.”

China’s labor costs nosedived because, unlike First Solar, it did not need skilled labor to produce its product, which has traditionally been more energy efficient than thin-film panels. Before China’s introduction of what Ahearn called “turnkey production equipment,” consumers had to choose between energy efficiency and cost, and cost (thin-film technology) usually won.

China could now produce the more energy-efficient traditional wafers as cheaply as First Solar could produce solar panels using the thin-film process.

First Solar had lost its pricing advantage, and China’s model was easily replicated.

“If you look at polysilicon manufacturers (of traditional solar panels), they’re a dime a dozen out there,” said Mike Koralewski, First Solar vice president and site manager for the Perrysburg plant. “That just tells you that it’s the level of competency and education you have to have to get [First Solar’s] technology to work.

“Right now, if you wanted to make a polysilicon wafer PV plant, you can go to various vendors around the globe and actually buy an entire plant from them, and they’ll install it for you.”

Changes in demand

The issue of which company had the best technology took on increased importance as many panel producers were struggled with a supply glut and an international credit crisis that prompted customers to cancel orders and delay construction of solar farms.

“Globally, there’s been a kind of softening of demand,” said Monique Hanis, Solar Energy Industries Association spokesperson in Washington, D.C.

In addition to other developments, Germany, First Solar’s primary customer, reduced subsidies for converting energy systems from fossil fuel to solar power.

On Sept. 25, 2011, it was reported that although solar experts were saying the domestic market for thin-film panels was growing, Toledo-area solar firms were struggling to overcome hurdles at state, federal and global levels. In addition to the U.S. recession and an increasing number of global competitors, First Solar, Willard & Kelsey and Xunlight had to adjust production schedules as a result of Germany’s decision to abandon its renewable-energy policies and subsidies that had been helping drive U.S. sales.

Ahearn said the cut in subsidies was troubling for First Solar.

“Going forward, our goal is not just to survive the current environment but to transcend it by creating and expanding markets worldwide that do not depend on today’s subsidy programs,” Ahearn said. “This requires that we refocus our strategy and commit our resources to solving the pressing energy needs that exist in much of the world.”

Alan Bernheimer, First Solar’s public relations director, said, “The company is starting to make progress in these new markets, recently announcing 159 megawatts in Australian projects, in addition to a 10 megawatt project already under construction.”

Additionally, Bernheimer said in 2011 that 8 percent of First Solar sales were in India, another developing sustainable market.

A second Toledo-based company, SSOE, a privately held international engineering, architecture and construction management firm, gained notoriety for its work in the solar industry.

In its September 2009 issue, Inc. Magazine ranked SSOE among the country’s fastest-growing firms based on revenue from 2005-08. CEO Tony Damon cited three contributing factors for SSOE’s success: global expansions into high-growth markets; increased focus on delivering engineering, procurement and construction management services; and, most importantly, growing sections such as alternative energy.

In December 2011, Tom Kimbis, vice president of strategy and external affairs for the Solar Energy Industries Association, said the intense competition among solar industry firms would produce four things: failures, mergers, acquisitions and bankruptcies.

Kimbis suggested the biggest problem firms faced was the loss of subsidies to finance large solar projects. Germany and Italy, the two largest European solar panel customers, had curtailed subsidies for new projects, thereby creating a glut of solar panels that resulted in the lowest solar panel prices ever.

Ahearn said First Solar adopted a five-point strategy to prevent potential failure: pursue new markets; improve its technology; adapt to customer needs; form better relationships with policy makers and regulators to promote large-scale solar deployment; and price its panels to drive demand without need for subsidies.

First Solar also planned to target five new growth markets: Australia, India, the Middle East, North Africa and the United States.

Analysts saw wisdom in First Solar’s strategy, suggesting that it was the best positioned of the Toledo-area companies to survive a fundamental restructuring of the global solar energy industry.

Bernheimer said First Solar has been successful in pursuing new markets. Just last month, First Solar announced three significant projects. It had been retained to build Australia’s two largest thin-film solar energy projects, to construct a 106-megawatt and a 53-megawatt project in New South Wales for power distributor AGL Energy Ltd. and to continue construction on Solar Ranch One power plant, a California project that is predicted to generate enough electricity to power 75,000 homes.

And when Fitch Ratings Ltd. reported in January that solar power companies were likely to encounter tough conditions for their public stock, First Solar responded by saying its competitors were “desperate” to sell inventory after adding too much factory capacity, leading to the current supply glut.

The week of July 16, Bernheimer suggested that “desperation” was still a problem because “there is still a supply and demand imbalance in the PV panel market.”

Bernheimer said this “desperation” has had a significant impact on the firm’s production workers, who make up the greatest percentage of First Solar employees.

“The supply/demand imbalance in Europe has affected our production associates in Europe, since we have announced the closure by year end of our manufacturing operations in Germany, with the elimination of about 1200 factory jobs there. In Perrysburg, by contrast, almost no positions were affected by First Solar’s restructuring,” Bernheimer said.

Alan Bernheimer

Xunlight has taken a completely different approach in dealing with changes in market demand. Rather than pursuing new markets, Xunlight is working to find practical applications for its technology.

On May 19, Dennis Kebrdle, Xunlight’s chief transition officer, introduced flexible solar panels for use on campers and boats as well as the roofs of buildings that can’t support heavier panels.

Kebrdle also announced that Xunlight obtained a $600,000 contract from the U.S. Navy.

On June 8, Xunlight introduced its go-anywhere power, a design Kebrdle called ideal for military personnel in remote locations who need power. The four flexible solar panels contained in the bag can be secured to the ground with stakes or fastened to another object through eyelets.

Xunlight’s strategy is to market its signature flexible solar panels to campers, boaters, the military and developing nations.

Fallout from Solyndra

After President Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008, he set out to begin to repair the beleaguered economy. One of his solutions was The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a federal program that pumped $787 billion into the economy.

Opponents of the federal stimulus package criticized how money was distributed, and one business, the solar energy firm Solyndra Inc., became the poster child for critics determined to focus on the stimulus package’s faults.

Solyndra, which had received $535 million in federal loans, filed for bankruptcy in September 2011. As a result, the California solar energy company faces a U.S. Justice Department investigation, a congressional probe, and a mostly Republican contingent of lawmakers contesting any federal aid for other solar manufacturers. By Dec. 4, 2011, two other large U.S. solar companies, Evergreen Solar and SpectraWatt, joined Solyndra in bankruptcy, and a fourth, BP Solar, stopped manufacturing in the spring of 2011.

In a speech given in front of Solyndra’s headquarters May 31, Romney said he intends to make “crony capitalism” a major theme in his campaign as well as a counter-attack to the Democratic Party’s emphasis on the worst-performing investments of Bain Capital during Romney’s time there.

A Romney ad uses First Solar as an example of Solyndra-like failure, and First Solar employees at all levels take exception to that portrayal.

Of First Solar, the ad states: “$3 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. Now they’re cutting jobs and their stock is near all-time lows.”

First Solar spokesman Ted Meyer acknowledges that jobs have been eliminated, but emphasizes that more than 90 percent of staff reductions were outside the U.S. First Solar has laid off 2,000 workers and closed its factory in Germany as well as closing down some production in Malaysia.

Meyer concedes that First Solar stock is “near all-time lows,” its price lower than it has been in more than six years. But it is not down to $4 per share, as a graphic in the Romney ad suggests. As of July 20, it was trading at $14.83 a share, down from its high of $301.30 in July 2008.

Meyer released a company statement about the ad.

“It’s surprising a candidate that claims to support U.S. economic growth would criticize a great American success story like First Solar. First Solar has proven that an American company can compete and win in renewable energy globally, and our success supports almost 10,000 American jobs, more than $1 billion in U.S. purchasing, tens of millions of dollars in exports, and record-setting innovation that reduces pollution and enhances U.S. energy security.”

Increased competition

Although solar experts said the domestic market for thin-film panels was growing in September 2011, Toledo-area solar firms were working to overcome hurdles at state, national and global levels. First Solar, Willard & Kelsey Solar Group and Xunlight faced serious issues in competition, including the economic uncertainty of the U.S. recession, an increase in worldwide competitors and the potential end of European renewable-energy policies and subsidies.

In December 2011, Ohio’s solar-panel industry experts predicted the industry would undergo a major shake-up that would break all but a handful of solar panel producers worldwide. The forecast raised questions about the future of the Toledo area’s three current panel makers, and the viability of a fourth one, Isofoton, coming in 2012.

Each area firm, First Solar, Isofoton North America, Willard & Kelsey and Xunlight, contended it would survive any shake-up because it made a particular type of panel that was both in demand and competitively priced.

Jifan Gao, chief executive of China’s Trina Solar Ltd., the world’s fifth-largest solar panel maker, predicted in late 2011 that by 2015, two-thirds of the industry’s solar-related companies would face either a merger, an acquisition or bankruptcy.

Gao also predicted that, by 2020, just 15 solar firms will be left worldwide, five in each one of three major segments: photovoltaic (solar) panels, solar energy, absorbing wafers and ingots, and production of raw materials such as polysilicon.

Ahearn of First Solar said his firm is prepared for any change, no matter how drastic.

“First Solar is transitioning from serving subsidized markets, such as Europe, to focus on sustainable markets, where high solar resource and strong demand for new generation make solar competitive with fossil fuel generation,” he said.

However, global industry pressures have affected First Solar, which responded by cutting its sales and margin forecasts to reflect slower demand growth and stiffer competition.

Xunlight responded to those same pressures by laying off 30 employees in May 2011, after an Italian firm delayed payment on its order.

Xunming Deng, then Xunlight CEO, was not disheartened, predicting that “We will be one of those survivors. Our products are unique and different and we’re starting at a much more premium price.”

Executives at Willard & Kelsey, who had planned to have two production lines and 250 workers by December 2011, said the U.S.’s poor economy and slow solar panel demand hindered the financing for its second line.

Mike Cicak, Willard & Kelsey’s chairman and CEO, remained optimistic as well. Cicak said the goal for his firm “is to get very, very low on cost and see what happens.”

Michael Peck, chairman of Isofoton North America, suggested that the lack of preparation in three key areas would be the downfall of most companies.

“Casualties will be those companies who have not introduced new technologies in a timely manner, whose cost structures are not competitive, and who have taken on too much debt to finance past performance due to sector challenges,” Peck said.

Peck said Isofoton North America, a Spanish company, chose to build its plant in the Toledo area because of the city’s cluster of solar firms and the research under way at the University of Toledo.

In addition to the disarray the U.S. industry faced with Solyndra, Evergreen Solar and SpectraWatt’s well-publicized bankruptcies, U.S. solar industry companies had filed a joint complaint in 2011 that China was dumping low-cost panels into the United States. The Federal Trade Commission ruled, Dec. 2 2011, that solar-equipment makers are being harmed by imports from China. The commission announced it would proceed with a full investigation, which, depending on its findings, might result in imposing added tariffs on China’s imports.

Asian competition

Few experts saw it coming.

The United States had been the leader in solar panel production in the beginning but by 2009, a Breakthrough Institute study indicated that China, Japan and South Korea were on the brink of outspending the United States 3-to-1 in all clean-energy investment through 2014. That same study also indicated that those three Asian nations had already passed the United States in “virtually all clean energy technologies.”

U.S. companies also complained that solar panel prices had been negatively affected by China’s flooding the world market with solar panels priced below production costs.

In mid-December 2011, First Solar’s Ahearn, then interim CEO, explained his firm’s position concerning the supply of solar panels in a conference call with First Solar investors.

“Global production has effectively tripled over the last three years,” Ahearn said. “Two factors have enabled this to occur.

“First, entry barriers for manufacturing polysilicon wafers and cells evaporated … when equipment suppliers effectively integrated process technology into turnkey production equipment. This enabled relatively inexperienced and unskilled operators to quickly enter the supply chain and led to an explosion of production capacity in China and elsewhere.

“Second, silicon feedstock constraints … were alleviated in recent years as additional feedstock capacity was brought on line by … suppliers. Feedstock availability brought down prices and enabled higher utilization rates for the nameplate production capacity. … The essential point is that the polysilicon supply chain has undergone a fundamental structural change.

“In a supply chain without structural entry barriers, several things occur. First, production volumes increase so long as capital is available to fund it, and we’ve seen over the past several years that U.S. equity markets and more recently, Chinese governmental entities have been willing to provide the capital needed to fund a massive production expansion.”

On May 18, 2012, the federal trade commission released a preliminary ruling that would add a 31 percent penalty on China’s imports. If the preliminary ruling is upheld, the 31 percent tariff could be imposed on Chinese solar-panel imports. A final decision is expected in October.

The tariffs would be in addition to fees ranging from 2.9 percent to 4.73 percent imposed in March after the Commerce Department found that China was improperly subsidizing its solar manufacturers.

Although U.S. solar panel-producing companies either support or maintain a neutral position on the tariffs, the majority of U.S. solar panel installers oppose them, arguing that less expensive imports have helped make solar panels more affordable for U.S. customers.

The ruling “will re-establish a natural balance in pricing that does need to occur in the global marketplace,” said SolarWorld President Gordon Brinser. He contends that the U.S. solar market has been harmed by cheap Chinese imports.

Jigar Shah, the leader of a coalition of solar companies that oppose U.S. tariffs, said he fears that additional tariffs will lead to the loss of thousands of U.S. jobs.

Brinser dismissed Shah’s forecast as “doomsday” talk.

First Solar in Perrysburg

Changes in leadership

As solar companies struggled to remain solvent, some organizations decided to make a change at the top.

On Oct. 25, 2011, First Solar’s CEO Rob Gillette resigned with no advance notice, and the company’s stock nosedived. First Solar stock had opened the trading day at $58.11 per share. It closed at $43.27 a share, a 25 percent drop in one day and the biggest single-day decline since the company’s initial public offering in November 2006. At $43.27, the stock was at its lowest level since 2007.

Ahearn, one of the company’s founders and its chairman, was tapped to serve as interim CEO. The extent of the shakeup became clear that day, as only one of First Solar’s top six corporate officers listed in the firm’s 2008 annual report remained with the company.

In a news release dated April 26, 2011, Ahearn explained the executive reshuffling.

On March 8, 2012, Deng, co-founder of Xunlight, resigned as the firm’s president, CEO and chairman of the board.

In an email, Deng wrote that he would continue on as an adviser to Xunlightas needed by the board of directors. Deng also said he would continue as chairman and CEO of Xunlight 26 Solar, as well as chairman and legal representative of Xunlight Kunshan and its plant in Kunshan, China.

First Solar made another change May 3, 2012, when it announced that James Hughes, the firm’s chief commercial officer, would become CEO, replacing Ahearn, the interim CEO and company founder. Ahearn took CEO position after Gillette left the position.

“Jim [Hughes] has been instrumental in developing the strategic plan that will enable us to compete and win in this new era for the solar industry, and it became clear he is the right person to lead the execution of that plan,” Ahearn said. “Jim brings a wide range of experience that will be invaluable in leading our organization, having owned and operated utilities, built power projects, cultivated partnerships and led profitable growth in a wide array of key markets around the world.”

Willard & Kelsey’s replacement of CEO William Mitchell in 2009 was much less cordial.

Mitchell was fired. After being fired, Mitchell copied the firm’s records onto what he said was his computer’s external hard drive, including months of financial transactions, banking records and detailed expense reports Mitchell claimed showed Willard & Kelsey’s travel and entertainment expenses.

Mitchell hired a lawyer to facilitate using that information to pressure Willard & Kelsey executives into paying him more than $1 million he claimed he was owed as CEO and part owner. Mitchell told his lawyer he had been instructed by Cicak, current CEO and chairman of Willard & Kelsey, to make payments to company executives from money advanced by group of Italian investors.

Mitchell died in July 2011.

Cicak said he could not discuss the situation because Willard & Kelsey has litigation pending against Mitchell’s estate, with the intention of recouping money he said Mitchell owed the company. He framed his discussion of the situation with the claim that all of Mitchell’s accusations were the work of a disgruntled employee fired for just cause.

Workforce issues

Leaders of Toledo-area solar panel companies say they recognize how important it is to both the economy and workforce morale to be able to offer members of the region’s extensive displaced workforce a job.

In that spirit, Willard & Kelsey executives said in February 2011 that the firm expected to hire 600 to 700 employees in 2012 and 2013. Cicak and Mossie Murphy, the firm’s chief financial officer, said the company hoped to generate 3,000 to 4,000 jobs between 2012 and 2017 and open a second factory three times the size of the one on Progress Drive in Perrysburg.

Despite its optimism, Willard & Kelsey has not been able to meet its hiring goals. Cicak said he remains hopeful that his firm will begin a full production schedule sooner rather than later.

In August 2011, First Solar faced workforce concerns when it was forced to rearrange about 60 jobs in its Perrysburg manufacturing complex because of what a news release called “a shift in our production processes.” First Solar, which has more than 1,200 employees at its Perrysburg facility, “redeployed” about 5 percent of its employees at one production site, assigning the “redeployed” workers to different production site at the same Perrysburg facility. Matt Dills, vice president in human resources, emphasized that “no jobs were eliminated and no salaries were affected.”

Since then, Deng said, Xunlight has slowly climbed back, securing new customers and pursuing a partnership with another solar firm that could lead Xunlight to expand its production beyond traditional solar panels.

On Dec. 4, 2011, Toledo media took stock of the area’s solar industry employment records, reporting that First Solar was the biggest solar industry presence in Toledo area with 1,200 employees. Willard & Kelsey had 72 employees, and 40 of those 72 were laid off in January 2012. Xunlight, which had promised 181 jobs, employed 50. Isofoton North America, which is building a plant in Napoleon, plans to open at the end of July with 330 jobs.

In March 2012, First Solar announced it would fire about 2,000 workers worldwide. The firm promised no layoffs would occur among production employees at the Perrysburg plant, although about 30 members of what it called Perrysburg’s “corporate administrative staff” would be laid off.

Although company officials said Perrysburg facility workers are not included in First Solar’s plans to reduce global production throughout 2012, industry analysts suggest Perrysburg facility employees might have reason to worry.

The Perrysburg facility faces the risk of downsizing later in 2012, according to Gordon Johnson, managing director and head of equity research at Axiom Capital Management Inc.

Johnson suggested that delayed and/or canceled projects could result in layoffs in Perrysburg.

Bernheimer, First Solar’s public relations director, said the firm would decrease operations at facilities in Germany and Malaysia, delay plans to open a second U.S. facility in Mesa, Ariz., and abandon a plan for a facility in Vietnam before it would downsize at the Perrysburg plant.

Bernheimer said the Perrysburg facility was spared this time because “demand in the U.S. remains strong and we have 2.7 gigawatts of projects under contract with utilities.”

Money issues

First Solar reported $664 million in profit in 2010 on sales of nearly $2.6 billion for global operations. The firm does not provide figures for the U.S. market. Financial figures are not available on Willard & Kelsey or Xunlight because they are privately owned and are not traded on the stock market.

All three Toledo-area firms have benefited from federal and state money and tax breaks.

First Solar’s Perrysburg facility was approved in September 2011 for $455.7 million loan from Export-Import Bank of USA. First Solar also received $16.3 million in federal tax credits for expansions at the Perrysburg plant.

Willard & Kelsey has secured at least $19.5 million in aid while Xunlight has received nearly $50 million in aid.

The biggest expense in a solar project is the interest on financing, according to Jeffrey Pichel, industry analyst at Jefferies & Co. Given what Pichel called First Solar’s “excellent balance sheet,” Pichel said First Solar is in good shape to finance future projects.

Todd Nein, interim executive director of Ohio Air Quality Development Authority (OAQDA), said solar companies are struggling because of the global economic downturn, the loss of European subsidies and the overabundance of unrealistically inexpensive Chinese solar panels.

In October 2011, First Solar reported net sales of $1 billion in the third quarter, an increase of $473 million from the second quarter of 2011, and up from $798 million in the third quarter of 2010.

Third quarter net income per fully diluted share for 2011 was $2.25, up from $0.70 in the second quarter of 2011 and $2.04 in the third quarter of 2010.

In December 2011, First Solar forecast 2011 net sales in the range of $2.8 billion to $2.9 billion, down from its previous range for net sales of $3 billion to $3.3 billion.

For 2012, First Solar forecast net sales from $3.7 billion to $4 billion, including approximately $1.7 billion from its systems business. Diluted earnings per share were expected to be between $3.75 and $4.25 with consolidated income.

First Solar reported in 2012 that it expected to generate nearly $1 billion of operating cash flow and had plans for approximately $375 million to $425 million in capital investments.

On Feb. 29, First Solar reported fourth-quarter losses of $413 million, or $4.74 per share, compared with profit of $155.9 million, or $1.80 per share, in February of 2011.

On May 4, First Solar acknowledged its enormous cost advantage over its competition had disappeared. As a result, First Solar stock fell to about $18 per share, down from $140 per share in 2011.

Also, since the cost of raw materials for crystalline silicon panels had taken a nosedive, it became easier for these traditional, more energy efficient panels to compete on price with First Solar’s thin-film panels.

Xunlight got a financial reprieve on May 19 when it was awarded a one-year deferment in repaying its state loans. Xunlight owed the OAQDA payments of a little more than $193,000 in both February and May. However, it made an interest-only payment in February and failed to make its May payment, said Nein.

Although the missed and partial payments violate the terms of Xunlight’s loan agreement, the company was allowed to defer loan repayments for a year because of the progress it is making, Nein said.

In January, the state took notice that Willard & Kelsey had failed to live up to production and staffing goals its executive leadership had set when it was formed in 2008. Willard & Kelsey had been conditionally approved for more than $3 million in state tax breaks, but has not generated enough jobs to remain eligible for those breaks, according to Daryl Hennessy, assistant chief of business services at the Ohio Department of Development (ODD).

Cicak said his firm had laid off employees because Willard & Kelsey’s only assembly line was undergoing changes to produce more efficient solar panels.

Nein of the OAQDA said his agency has confidence in Willard & Kelsey because its executives have experience with First Solar.

Willard & Kelsey faced additional scrutiny earlier this year because it had also reduced payments on a five-year $5 million loan from the ODD. The firm was only paying about $7,800 a month to cover the interest on the loan, Hennessy said.

Cicak said he is looking into financial options, including finding another investor, to fund Willard & Kelsey’s operations.

“No, I’m not closing,” Cicak said Jan. 18. “I’m going to try and work my way out of it.”

Cicak said investors have sunk more than $100 million into Willard & Kelsey and he is determined to keep the firm afloat.

Stock prices

First Solar has ridden a stock market roller coaster since it went public Nov. 17, 2006. In opening-day trading, the stock closed at $28.30, a 41 percent increase on the opening price of $20 a share. The stock peaked 20 months later, when, on July 31, 2008, it closed at $301.30 a share.

First Solar’s closing price history, as reported by Market Watch, shows rapid growth from November 2006 to July 2008, and then a precipitous fall of $185.75 per share in just four months. It closed at $115.55 per share on Nov. 17, 2008, the two-year anniversary of its first public offering.

Since then, prices have fluctuated, all the while declining, closing at $123.99 on Nov. 17, 2009; $122.83 on Nov. 17, 2010; $45.61 on Nov. 17, 2011; and $14.83 on July 20.

Isofoton, like Willard & Kelsey and Xunlight, is privately held. None of the three are traded on the stock market or release their financial information.

Since July 2010, Isofoton has been part of the Affirma Business Group, which holds 80 percent of the firm’s ownership). Affirma’s expertise is in the development of solar projects. The other 20 percent ownership belongs to TOPTEC, a South Korean company that specializes in industrial automation.

Construction problems

In February, First Solar faced financial uncertainty when a construction delay threatened to cancel the sale of a large solar power plant it was building for Exelon.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, First Solar said it has been unable to resolve a construction permit issue at the 230-megawatt Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One plant in Los Angeles County, Calif. The issue was blocking the distribution of funds from a $646 million federal loan guarantee intended to pay for the construction project.

First Solar sold the California project to Exelon for $75 million in September 2011. Under the terms of the sale, First Solar was obligated to buy the solar power plant back from Exelon if the funding for the loan was unavailable.

First Solar, which is in the business of constructing, not operating, solar plants, said that if it were required to purchase the solar power plant from Exelon it would still have enough cash to operate its business while the firm looked for another buyer.

First Solar is the only area solar firm in the business of building solar energy fields. Bernheimer said First Solar is “very much the (global) leader in building and developing these large, utility-scale solar generating plants, or solar projects.”

Bernheimer also said First Solar has seen an increase in domestic demand for solar energy field construction. First Solar has 25 construction projects, totaling 2.7 gigawatts of utility-scale solar projects, in various stages of development and construction in North America, all with long-term contracts to deliver power to utilities.

Twelve of the projects are in the “In Operation” stage: four in California, three in New Mexico, one in Arizona and four in Ontario, Canada.

Seven are in the “Under Construction” stage: five in California and two in Arizona.

Six are in the “In Development” stage: three in California and three in Ontario, Canada.

Drastic drop in prices

In 2000, the United States produced about 40 percent of thin-film solar panels worldwide. Ten years later, in 2010, the U.S. was producing less than 10 percent of said panels.

Decreased production was accompanied by an unexpected drop in panel prices. In September 2011, the solar association reported that the price of solar panels had declined 30 percent since 2010, the result of increased solar competition and falling silicon prices.

Despite the decline in price, Bernheimer said First Solar experienced sales growth in 2010 because it made what he called the most affordable panels in the world.

As early as April 14, the average selling prices for solar panels had dropped another 10 percent from the record-low levels recorded in 2011. The drop in prices helped boost global sales and made solar power less dependent on subsidies to compete against fossil fuels. However, lower prices erased any profit among the region’s three manufacturers.

Analysts’ observations

In June 2008, solar industry analysts suggested that new competitors and high stock prices would cause First Solar problems.

Mehdi Hosseini, an analyst with FBR Capital Markets, lowered the rating on First Solar shares from hold to sell. First Solar’s stock was trading at almost $300 a share then, and Hosseini argued the price reflected unrealistic expectations about the firm’s future profit margins. He also expressed concern that First Solar could be forced to lower its prices to achieve its goal of selling plant-size solar-energy installations to U.S. utilities, and lower prices could hurt profit margins.

In 2009, stock analysts at Deutsche Bank Securities in New York predicted that panels made with cadmium would account for 13 percent of global production that year, up from 10 percent just a year earlier. Analysts attributed most of that to growth at First Solar.

Steve O’Rourke, a Deutsche Bank Securities analyst, said he expected the excess supply of panels to lead to industry competition that would benefit First Solar, a company that he called the “industry leader” with “sustainable competitive advantages.”

In his report, O’Rourke suggested that First Solar “offer[ed] the most compelling value proposition in the industry.” He predicted that First Solar would “do the most to define and advance the solar panel industry in years to come.”

Two years later, on Dec. 4, 2011, Jeffrey Pichel, an industry analyst at Jefferies & Co., forecast solar industry consolidation for 2012 to 2014, citing the bankruptcies of Solyndra, Evergreen Solar and SpectraWatt, and BP Solar’s halt in manufacturing as the primary reasons for consolidation.

Pichel said First Solar avoiding becoming a victim of industry consolidation “all [comes] down to how they can improve their efficiency.”

Clarifications for Part I:

Alan Bernheimer, First Solar’s public relations director, reported via email July 20 that First Solar stock peaked July 31, 2008 at $301.30 a share, not Nov. 1, 2007, at $237.15 a share as reported in Part I.

First Solar’s Perrysburg plant was built in 1999. The June 3, 2003, groundbreaking event referenced in Part I was for the building of an expansion to the original structure.

Sun Burn 1: Area courted solar energy with research

Like most relationships, it started slowly. The two began to get acquainted. There was the usual small talk and some occasional flirting.

In what seemed like record time, they decided they were made for one another. They shared so much in common — mutual interests, a willingness to make the necessary time commitment and hopes and dreams of a longtime future together.

Familiarity led to mutual respect and an intoxicating affection for success. Before they knew it, and without much planning, they were involved in a serious relationship. They couldn’t see anything beyond the here and now. They had nothing but good things to say to and about each another.

It was the best of times.

But then they hit the inevitable rough patch. They were unprepared for the jealousy that infiltrated the relationship as they began to listen to what others were saying about them. With that doubt came the beginning of bigger problems. They began to see, even focus on, each other’s flaws — a few slight exaggerations, unintentional broken promises and the aggravation of not quite living up to expectations.

Money became an issue. They had spent what they had without enough planning, and it became almost impossible to make minimum payments. The bill collectors started calling. And calling. And calling.

Rather than tackle the issues head on, they took the easy route. They never really talked about what was happening. Each would admit feeling a little let down, but there were no real hard feelings. They just accepted the inevitable. They just stopped seeing and calling one another. They split up.

It was the worst of times.

They both knew they would eventually have to deal with everything that had happened. They just weren’t quite ready.

This is the story of Greater Toledo and its courtship of, and investment in, the solar industry.

The Toledo region was committed to upholding its reputation of being a great place to live — well-paying manufacturing jobs, a safe, family-oriented community and comfortable city amenities.

And then the recession hit.

Economic uncertainty

Beginning in 2000, and peaking with the 2007 recession, an estimated 50,000 jobs, or 14 percent of all employment opportunities, were lost in the Greater Toledo area, according to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS).

The automotive industry was hit hardest. General Motors Co.’s Toledo Powertrain plant saw extensive job losses from 2000 to 2010 as 4,000 jobs became 1,600. Perrysburg’s Chrysler plant also lost about 2,500 jobs, from 5,000 workers in 2001 to half that many in 2010.

In the retail sector, ODJFS figures show that Toledo lost 9,500 jobs between 2000 and 2010. The state agency also estimates 3,100 Toledo jobs were lost in “general merchandise stores” in that same 10-year span.

No one industry was to blame; generally speaking, jobs were the victim of increased automation and greater productivity, which allowed employers to produce the same, or often more, product with fewer workers.

In stepped the solar energy industry.

Political support

Buoyed by groundbreaking research at the University of Toledo and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Toledo saw a chance to rebound from its economic woes and become what Dan Johnson, UT president emeritus and a solar industry advocate, called “the solar capital of the nation.”

With financial and civic support — what cynics might call a romantic wooing of the solar industry — Toledo saw the emergence of no fewer than nine solar energy business ventures.

First Solar

In 1984, inventor and entrepreneur Harold McMaster founded Glasstech Solar to manufacture low-cost, thin film cells on a large scale. At the urging of a colleague, McMaster founded Solar Cells, Inc. in 1990. In February 1999, he sold Solar Cells, Inc. to True North Partners LLC., who renamed it First Solar.

Three years later, in 2002, First Solar launched production of commercial products. On June 3, 2003, First Solar broke ground on its Perrysburg facility and began production one year later.

The company went public in 2006, trading on the NASDAQ market.

On Nov. 17, 2006, the first day of its public offering of shares, First Solar reports its stock opened at $20 a share. By the end of that same day, a single share of stock had climbed to $28.30, a one-day increase of 41 percent on the initial investment.

Eleven months later, on Nov. 1, 2007, First Solar stock reached its peak: the initial $20 investment per share had become $237.15 a share. A stockholder’s modest investment of $1,000, the cost of 50 shares of stock, had become $11,857.50.

On Nov. 17, 2007, its first anniversary of going public, First Solar reported a market value of $15 billion.

Those kind of short-term returns are unparalleled, and some stockholders who had gotten in on the ground floor suddenly found themselves rich beyond their wildest dreams. Excitement in the company rose to a fever pitch.

No American business venture has been able to maintain an almost 1,200 percent annual growth rate for any length of time. First Solar was no exception. Stock prices began to fall, but shareholders, spurred by dreams of even greater wealth, continued to invest. Excitement in First Solar continued to grow.

In 2009, First Solar became the first solar panel manufacturing company globally to lower its manufacturing cost to $1 per watt. It has since been reduced to 73 cents per watt, and company officials predict the price will continue to fall.

Lower production prices took center stage because the less money First Solar had to spend producing solar panels, the less the firm would have to charge customers. Its lower prices eventually resulted in increased sales, higher company profit margins and healthy shareholder profit.

Additionally, by crossing the $1-per-watt threshold, First Solar made its energy competitive with power produced by conventional means. Consumers no longer had to spend any more for solar power than they spent for electricity.

Harold McMaster

At the end of 2009, First Solar also surpassed an annual production rate of one gigawatt. In doing so, it became the largest photovoltaic (PV) module manufacturer in the world before dropping in subsequent years.

Fast Company editors praised First Solar for focusing on “one overriding goal: driving down the cost of solar-power modules until they could compete with traditional power. It has used every strategy at its disposal, from newly patented technologies to overseas mass production to vertical integration at all levels of a project — all while managing to sidestep economic landmines and navigate the shifting policy landscape.”

First Solar also became the first renewable energy company in the past decade to be listed on the Standard & Poor’s 500, widely regarded as the best single gauge of the U.S. stock market. The S&P index includes the 500 leading companies in leading industries of the U.S. economy, capturing 75 percent coverage of all U.S. stocks.

A second solar company, Solar Fields LLC, followed in First Solar’s footsteps, establishing itself as a n industry leader in cutting-edge solar energy research.

Solar Fields began its life in October 2002 when Integrated Thin Films, the solar-energy project of McMaster and colleagues Frank Larimer and Norman Nitschke at UT’s Clean and Alternative Energy Business Incubator, underwent a name change. In 2002, UT was arguably the nation’s leading center for research on solar-energy technology.

Solar Fields faced its biggest challenge when its founder, McMaster, died Aug. 25, 2003, 10 months after the firm’s establishment.

In McMaster’s obituary, Michael Cicak, former president and COO of McMaster’s Glasstech Solar and current CEO of Willard & Kelsey Solar Group, acknowledged his mentor’s brilliance.

“There is no equal to Harold McMaster,” Cicak said. “When he speaks, you listen — then you analyze and learn from what he’s said.”

Solar Field ownership transferred to the firm’s investors and it was led by McMaster’s widow with guidance from Larimer and Nitschke. Helen McMaster ran the firm until it was sold to Q-Cells AG, a Germany company, in 2007.

At the time of the sale, Toledo media reported that Solar Fields’ patents, property and employees transferred to Calyxo USA Inc., a subsidiary of Q-Cells AG. Solar Fields’ investors received $5 million and 7 percent of stock in Calyxo USA Inc.

Norm Johnston

During its five years in Perrysburg, Solar Fields had nine employees whose primary focus was research.

In November 2007, Robert Collins, director of UT’s Wright Center for Photovoltaics Innovation and Commercialization (established in 2006), told Toledo media outlets that Solar Fields’ chief accomplishment was the development of machinery for the mass production of what was at that time a highly innovative style of solar panels that held promise of making energy from sunlight as cheap as that produced from fossil fuels.

Norm Johnston, Solar Fields’ CEO and inventor of the panel-coating technology used at Solar Fields, praised the sale, calling it “an excellent opportunity to be associated with one of the world’s most successful solar companies.”

Q-Cells AG, the parent company of Solar Fields’ new home, was First Solar’s chief competitor for leadership in the global market. Q-Cells AG had grown almost as rapidly as First Solar, increasing production by 42 percent in the first half of 2007. Its annual revenues were expected to reach $1.2 billion by year’s end.

Q-Cells AG was the world’s second-largest manufacturer of solar panels, although its primary expertise was in traditional technology. To gain the competitive advantage over rival First Solar, Q-Cells AG invested in a number of promising new “thin-film” manufacturing methods, specifically those used by First Solar’s fellow tenant in the UT business incubator.

Xunlight

2002 was a very productive year.

At the same time First Solar was launching production of commercial products and Solar Fields was morphing from Integrated Thin Films into Calyxo USA Inc., a pair of UT professors started looking for ways to commercialize their research in solar panels using thin-film photovoltaics.

Along with Harold McMaster and his Solar Fields’ team, UT physics professor Xunming Deng and UT visiting assistant professor Liwei Xu, conducted research at UT’s Clean and Alternative Energy Business Incubator. In the fall of 2002, Deng and Xu followed McMaster’s lead and co-founded their own company, Midwest Optoelectronics, LLC. Four years later, in 2006, the firm was reorganized, becoming Xunlight Corporation.

The commercial solar industry was attracting national attention at that time, and after First Solar’s first public offering of stock, Xunlight found itself in the lucrative position of riding First Solar’s coattails.

In its first eight months as Xunlight, the solar energy start-up raised $7 million in venture capital investment. By Sept. 29, 2007, Xunlight had collected another $3 million more in government funding, including a $1.9 million grant from the prestigious National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Toledo’s emergence in the industry of clean technology was becoming national news. The May 26, 2007, issue of The Economist highlighted Toledo as one of four regions in the U.S. that could emerge “as the Silicon Valley of clean technology,” citing Xunlight Corp. as an example of excellence.

Xunlight’s success was also documented in 2007 in articles appearing in Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal. Deng and Xu’s Xunlight had emerged from UT’s Clean and Alternative Energy Business Incubator as a model of how intellectual capital of university researchers could be turned into successful businesses and regional economic development.

Two months after Xunlight received the NIST grant, the Lucas County Board of Commissioners and County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz announced that Lucas County was making a $2 million investment in Xunlight. Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop said the county took the gamble because “we have a chance to become the Silicon Valley of alternative energy, and Xunlight will be at the front of that charge.”

In a guest column in Toledo Free Press three days later, Karl Rundgren, managing editor and co-anchor of FOX Toledo News, sang Xunlight’s praises, saying “it’s hard not to get excited about Xunlight’s prospects,” he wrote, noting the promise of the firm “bringing in $200 million annually” and ”possibly employing 700 people.”

Xunming Deng

The money continued to flow.

On April 25, 2008, Xunlight announced that private investors would contribute $22.3 million to give Toledo its second alternative energy product manufacturer in the past year. Trident Capital became Xunlight’s third major investor, making a $22.3 million investment. In doing so, Trident Capital joined Emerald Technology Ventures and NGP Energy Technology Partners, which had invested $7 million of their own money.

On the same day Xunlight got the $22.3 million infusion of capital, co-founder Deng excited the Toledo business community with the announcement that he was partnering with Al Compaan, a retired UT physics professor and longtime Deng associate, to establish Xunlight 26 Solar.

Three months later, on July 18, Xunlight received a $4.9 million grant from the Ohio’s Third Frontier Commission because, with Xunlight Corp. and Xunlight 26, Deng, Xu and associates were promoting high-tech jobs and business ventures. According to a Third Frontier spokesman, the money was earmarked to aid Xunlight in manufacturing.

Not to be outdone, one month later, on Aug. 29, the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority guaranteed $1 million of a $7 million loan to assist Xunlight in the purchase and installation of a solar-panel production line at its Nebraska Avenue facility. The Port Authority also discussed possibly buying stake in the solar-panel firm.

The Port Authority board had enough confidence in Xunlight’s potential to vote unanimously to lend Xunlight the money from its Northwest Ohio Bond Fund. In doing so, Paul Toth, the Port Authority’s interim president, said the Port Authority was willing to take on part of the financial risk and accept stock warrants that would allow the organization to buy up to $100,000 of Xunlight stock at a fixed per-share price. Should Xunlight default on the $7 million loan, the Port Authority, along with Lucas County and a number of private banks, would have first claim to solar-cell production equipment, software and other intellectual property required to operate the solar panel plant.

Willard & Kelsey Solar Group

Another group of investors, four of who had worked with Harold McMaster in the 1980s to establish the pioneering firms of Glasstech and Solar Cells, joined forces in 2008 to create Willard & Kelsey Solar Group LLC. They intended the company to build upon McMaster’s solar energy developments while moving current technology to a higher level.

Led by solar industry veterans James Appold, Michael Cicak, James Heider and Gary Faykosh, the Willard & Kelsey executive team raised $105 million in investment capital to get the company up and running. Planned expenditures included $7 million to buy the factory, $7.3 million for renovations and $89 million for machinery.

On July 30, 2008, Toledo media reported that Ohio officials approved tax credits for Willard & Kelsey, whose founders had filed documents with the state detailing plans to develop a Perrysburg plant with 400 employees making low-cost solar energy panels.

At that time, Willard & Kelsey indicated it intended to redevelop Delafoil Ohio Inc., an out-of-business electronics component manufacturing plant on Progress Drive, off state route 25 in Perrysburg.

The Ohio Tax Credit Authority agreed to provide Willard & Kelsey credit against state income taxes worth 60 percent of the Ohio payroll taxes withheld from its employees. The job creation tax credit was approved to last 10 years.

Mohammad Smidi, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official in Bowling Green, said a company executive told him earlier that month that Willard & Kelsey planned to begin operations as early as August 2008.

An EPA permit issued April 24 indicated the firm planned to make solar panels using a low-cost thin-film technology similar to that used at First Solar. That same EPA permit gave the firm permission to run a 24-hour-a-day operation producing 240 panels an hour at the Perrysburg factory.

Company executives also told Perrysburg officials they intended to seek a 10-year, $177,000 job-creation grant as well as assistance with road and traffic improvements.

The tax credits, approved July 28, 2008, were scheduled to begin in January 2009 and stretch through December 2018. A company executive told Ohio that Willard & Kelsey intended to create 400 full-time jobs by August 2011, with employees earning an average wage of $21.25 an hour.

Hopes ran high among Toledo political and business leaders. If Willard & Kelsey successfully executed its plan — and every indication was that its executive team’s extensive experience and presumed expertise almost guaranteed success — Perrysburg was destined to become the global center of the quickly expanding solar energy industry.

Isofoton North America

The most recent addition to the Greater Toledo solar energy industry is Isofoton North America, a Spanish solar energy company that chose Napoleon as the location for its North American manufacturing facility, initially scheduled to open in December 2011. Toledo-area political and business leaders responded with enthusiasm because Isofoton’s initial estimates were that the plant could generate as many as 330 jobs.

Toledo Free Press reported a year ago this month that the Ohio Department of Development (DOD) announced that it would provide $15.8 million of assistance to match the European manufacturer’s pledge to invest $16.4 million in Northwest Ohio.

The $15,893,057 in state funds included $7.08 million from the Ohio Enterprise Bond Fund, $5 million from the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, $3 million in a 166 Direct Loan, $488,057 in an Ohio Job Creation Tax Credit, $250,000 from an Economic Development Grant and $75,000 from the Ohio Workforce Investment Program, according to James Leftwich, director of the Ohio DOD.

The Napoleon factory was initially slated to begin operation with 121 clean-energy manufacturing jobs and build up to 330 direct jobs by 2012, according to Angel Luis Serrano, CEO of Isofoton’s headquarters in Spain.

The DOD also projected another 1,000 indirect jobs being created by the Isofoton project in 2012.

“We are pleased that Isofoton looks forward to working closely with regional economic development partners and with the University’s multiple research and worker training fronts,” Jacobs stated in a news release.

Paul Zito, vice president of international development at the Regional Growth Partnership, echoed Jacobs. He used Isofoton’s decision to locate in Napoleon to make his point. He reported that Isofoton’s executives praised Northwest Ohio’s skilled labor force, work ethic, research and development programs at UT, supplier base and spirit of collaboration as their reasons for choosing this region.

Next week in Part II: How the solar industry, with its unlimited growth potential, began to struggle; a look at the circumstances that led Toledo-area solar energy corporations to restructure their organizations, change leadership, redirect missions and enter new markets.

Pounds: Solar energy in NW Ohio: Rising sun or setting sun?

Just as automotive manufacturing was slowing down, causing economic distress locally, a bright light of hope appeared on Toledo’s horizon: solar energy. It seemed Northwest Ohio, ever-enterprising in spirit, had discovered an exciting new opportunity. The University of Toledo led the way with research and many of the area’s proud manufacturing businesses adapted to the emerging solar industry.

Dan Johnson, former University of Toledo president and a solar industry advocate, wrote in these pages that Toledo could be “the solar capital of the nation.”

A who’s who of civic leaders and entrepreneurs backed the movement and it truly looked like Northwest Ohio could lead the world in this emerging technology.

The resurgent auto industry is making more positive headlines in our region than solar is. Plagued by a sluggish economy, layoffs, outsourcing, plunging values and scandals, the local solar energy industry finds itself losing luster.

Are these temporary growing pains or has this potential source of jobs and growth already seen its brightest days?

Toledo Free Press Editor in Chief Michael S. Miller and Staff Writer John P. McCartney have collaborated to plan the largest research and journalism project in Toledo Free Press’ nearly eight-year history. The four-part series, “Sun Burn,” will take an in-depth look at solar’s past, present and future in Northwest Ohio. It is an ambitious blend of research, reporting and analysis, seeking to answer the question, “What role does solar energy play in our future?”

It’s a simple question with an undoubtedly complicated answer. The story begins with Harold McMaster’s mid-1980s work and will travel through the University of Toledo, the Third Frontier Project, state and federal money, First Solar, Xunlight, Solar Fields, Willard & Kelsey, Isofoton and nearly 100 sources, from elected officials to workers assembling solar panels.

The story was carefully outlined, but the ultimate answer to the thesis question was not known when the research started: Has the sun set on solar energy in Northwest Ohio, or is this a temporary retrenching?

Follow this compelling series and you will have access to enough information to make a qualified judgment of your own.

Thomas F. Pounds is president and publisher of Toledo Free Press and Toledo Free Press Star. Contact him at tpounds@toledofreepress.com.

Michael S. Miller is editor in chief of Toledo Free Press and Toledo Free Press Star. Contact him at mmiller@toledofreepress.com.

Glass City Hunger Games

Anderson: “Indeed, Lee, and this is the third annual contest, which was initiated in 2012 by Toledo Free Press Editor in Chief Michael Miller, just before his tragic death in that incident at the Tim Hortons drive-thru.”

Conklin: “That was a glaze-covered tragedy, but his legacy lives on in this adaptation of the Hunger Games, in which Toledo’s leaders face off in a battle to the death, all for our entertainment.”

Anderson: “Now, we should stress that the competitors are actually using avatars, so there will be no true harm or injury to the actual people involved.”

Conklin: “That’s right, Jerry. To remind viewers of our premise, we have 24 participants from districts in Northwest Ohio. They will compete in an atmosphere-controlled dome with weapons supplied by sponsors,

in a battle to the death. The sole winner in this live, televised tournament will receive a Tony Packo’s gift basket, stock in First Solar, an autographed Crystal Bowersox CD and absolute ruling power over the enslaved citizens of our region until the 2016 Glass City Hunger Games.”

Anderson: “Minor problems in the dome today as the solar panels that power the lighting are flickering, but everything seems to be working now. We’ve already seen the parade and interviewed our combatants, so we’re just seconds away from the battle. Let’s go down to the field and hear from Chrys Peterson and Diane Larson, who were genetically fused into one anchor after our recent media merger.”

Conklin: “Great story of corporate synergy there, Jerry, especially when you remember that they used elements of Shaun Hegarty to give Chrys and Diane that ginger glow.”

Chrys/Diane: “We’re here before the big battle begins, with Councilman Tom Waniewski and 2014 Hunger Games champion, State Rep. Michael Ashford. Michael, how do you rate the competition this year?”

Ashford: “I respect the competition, especially Vice President Joe the Plumber, who knows how to use so many of these tools of destruction. I am hoping he exits early but he’s been underestimated before.”

Chrys/Diane: “Tom, there was a great deal of criticism of the violence in last year’s games, and you were at the heart of that when you decapitated former mayor Carty Finkbeiner with that Imagination Station bookmark.”

Waniewski: “As you know, Chrys/Diane, I am opposed to this travesty of an event, but I’m not afraid to get my hands dirty to win it for the people of this city.”

(Cannon booms)

Anderson: “And this just in, before the games even begin we have an early exit, as Councilman Phil Copeland has been disqualified for not showing up to compete.”

Conklin: “Not really a surprise, Jerry, but there may be more news as Councilman George Sarantou just stole Copeland’s supply of nightlock berries to make baklava. If he eats those berries, he’ll be out before the games begin!”

Anderson: “Ah, but look, Lee, George is offering those nightlock baklava desserts to Lucas County Commissioners Carol Contrada and Pete Gerken. They may see it as a sign of alliance, but, oh, oh, there it is, both commissioners took a bite and are now writhing in agony on the ground, foaming at the mouth.”

Conklin: “Yes, Jerry, it looks like Webb’s avatar is going to bleed to death on the field, which is ironic when you think about the depleted blood supply in Northwest Ohio as the Red Cross union strike enters its fourth year.”

Anderson: “On the other side of the field, Councilman Joe McNamara and Sen. Edna Brown are going at it, punching and kicking and throwing down in a ballot box rematch!”

Conklin: “It’s the kind of bloody battle that makes these games draw the big ratings, Jerry, and look at that! Brown just knocked McNamara to the ground, but he is still taking swings and trying to get the best of her.”

Anderson: “He’s a scrapper, no question. Brown is moving in for the kill, but she better watch out, because sneaking up behind her is Rep. Marcy Kaptur.”

Conklin: “Oh! Kaptur was just about to plant a knitting needle in Edna Brown’s back when Edna ducked, and McNamara ninja-tossed 200 American flag pins right toward Kaptur’s avatar’s jugular!”

Anderson: “Amazing, Lee, but as Kaptur hit the ground, a wig and mask fell off to reveal former County Commissioner Ben Konop! Sneaky way to get into these games!”

Conklin: “And look, more than 50 of McNamara’s ninja pins have flown across the field, mowing down politicians like a tornado cutting through a trailer park! Down goes Teresa Fedor! Tyrone Riley falls! Down goes Steve Steel! Sherrod Brown is out!”

Anderson: “A stunning development! Mike Craig is down! Bob Latta falls! Paula Hicks-Hudson is down! Waniewski staggers near Sarantou, but as they head for shelter for weapons — it looks like Sarantou was reaching for a rhino horn — Rob Ludeman takes them both out with a Danberry Realty sign! It’s a GOP meltdown! What a mess — it’s too bad avatars don’t qualify for domestic partner benefits and health care.”

Conklin: “And the Gamekeeper has released a wild card! There’s a lanky towheaded Tracker Jacker wildly dancing and brandishing a blade, but no one seems to be paying attention to him. His blade just doesn’t seem to be intimidating anyone. Oh — the Tracker Jacker just fell and impaled himself.”

Anderson: “Lee, I see an alliance of Adam Martinez, Tina Skeldon Wozniak, Rob Portman and Anita Lopez trying to make a break for the woods, but Ashford was waiting in a tree with a crossbow and he’s picking them off one by one!”

Conklin: “Let’s go to Chrys/Diane, reporting from the field.”

Chrys/Diane: “It’s a bloodbath down here, as a camouflaged Clerk of Courts Bernie Quilter just rose out of the woods and started racing through the field, cracking heads with his bare hands! He took Ashford’s crossbow and pushed him out of the tree! Now he’s shooting arrows like a demented Cupid! McNamara is out! Edna Brown is out! He’s taken out all the survivors! Bernie Quilter may be our winner!”

Conklin: “But wait, we only count 22 avatar bodies on the field. Someone is missing … Look! As Quilter steps around the bodies, Mike Bell rides into the arena on a motorcycle and runs Quilter through with chopsticks! It looks like Bell will win the 2015 Glass City Hunger Games!”

Conklin: “We’ll have to wait for the lights to come back on to interview the 2015 champion.”

(Lights flicker and turn on)

Anderson: “That’s better! Now we can talk to Bell about his stunning victory! But wait! D. Michael Collins has pulled himself from the carnage and is challenging Bell!”

Conklin: “It’s a life-and-death battle for a Tony Packo’s gift basket, stock in First Solar, an autographed Crystal Bowersox CD and absolute control over us all! Collins is swinging and lunging with his tornado shelter sign, but Bell’s Changquan practice is paying off.”

Anderson: “Collins just won’t go away, he’s making his Marine legacy proud, but Bell is brandishing a qiang. He must have ice water in his veins, because he is approaching Collins like Clint Eastwood in an old Western movie!”

Conklin: “Bell is just brushing aside Collins’ strikes! He’s taken the qiang and … oh!”

Bell (facing Collins): “Ask not for whom the Bell tolls, *****! I toll for thee.”

Chrys/Diane: “Mike, congratulations! That was a great strategy, staying above the fray until the last minute!”

Bell: “Thanks, Chrys/Diane! I credit my Harley and the teachings of Wushu Master Liu Xiao Ling. As my first act, I’m going to free all the citizens of Northwest Ohio and restore respect and cooperation into our political process. Hey, you two don’t look comfortable sewn together like that. Want me to put you out of your misery?”

First Solar sets world record for solar PV efficiency

First Solar, Inc. announced Jan. 17 that it set a new world record for cadmium-telluride (CdTe) photovoltaic solar module efficiency, achieving 14.4 percent total area efficiency.

The U.S. Department of Energy’s National renewable Energy Lab confirmed the record, which eclipsed the prior record of 13.4 percent also set by First Solar.

The record performance was announced at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi by First Solar’s Chief Technology Officer Dave Eaglesham, just six months after the company set the world record for CdTe solar cell efficiency with a mark of 17.3 percent.

James Walker (seated) discusses the relative atomic composition of solar cells with Professor Robert Collins, Adam Phillips and Randy Ellingsen in a photovoltaic analysis lab at UT.

Both the cell and module record setters were constructed using commercial scale manufacturing equipment and materials at First Solar’s production facility in Perrysburg. The company employs more than 1,000 workers at the Perrysburg location.

Cell efficiency measures the proportion of light converted to energy in a single cell, while total area module efficiency measures the light conversion across a production-size, multi-cell solar module, providing a more realistic assessment of real-world performance than cell or aperture-area efficiency, according to First Solar.

“These records also underscore the tremendous ongoing potential of CdTe compared to silicon-based technologies,” he stated.

First Solar has produced more than 5 GW of its advanced thin-film modules utilizing a continuous manufacturing process which transforms a sheet of glass into a complete solar module in less than 2.5 hours. That process contributes to the company’s industry-leading energy payback time and the low carbon footprint of systems using First Solar PV modules.

First Solar announced in December that the company was reducing its total workforce by 100 associates or about 1.5 percent. Only a small number of associates at the Perrysburg location were expected to be affected, according to a company spokesperson.

First Solar stock (NASDAQ: FSLR) has suffered a significant loss in value over the past year from a high of $175 per share to a low of $29.87. The stock was listed at $40 per share at close of the market Jan. 17.

First Solar manufactures solar modules with an advanced semiconductor technology, and is a leading provider of comprehensive photovoltaic (PV) system solutions.

To help scale up through workforce development, I have introduced the bipartisan Strengthening Employment Clusters to Organize Regional Success Act (SECTORS), which would empower local communities — community colleges, industry leaders and workforce development boards — to address the disparity between high unemployment rates and a shortage of skilled workers for emerging industries such as biotech, clean energy and information technology.

By tailoring work force development programs to meet the needs of these expanding industries, we can better prepare our students to fill new jobs while attracting emerging industries to our state. This is just one way we can strengthen middle class families in Ohio while rebuilding our communities.

Let’s act swiftly to get Ohioans back to work.

U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, Ohio

VA clinic duplicates existing services

TO THE EDITOR,

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur is so proud of the new VA Clinic being built virtually adjacent to the University of Toledo Medical College. She is proud of her role in making it happen. She says that this will increase veteran services here in Toledo so that vets don’t have to go to Ann Arbor as often. But she says that this isn’t even enough; she wants more. She wants a “full service campus for our vets.”

Why do we need anything at all?

I’m all for providing medical services and other support to veterans. But why duplicate clinics and hospitals that already exist in the private sector? Why not just send the vets to local medical facilities — or specialty facilities like The Cleveland Clinic if required — and have the VA pick up the bill? Wouldn’t that be more efficient? Wouldn’t that save a lot of taxpayer dollars? Don’t forget, those vets are taxpayers, too.

It seems that the law prohibits the VA from doing this. So the solution is to build a multi-billion dollar system which parallels the private sector. It seems that the only federal solution to anything is to spend more money. Wouldn’t it be simpler — and a more prudent use of taxpayer dollars — to just change the law? Isn’t that why we have lawmakers in Washington?

Of course, if that were the case, our elected representatives would miss out on press conferences to tout what they’re doing for us and photos ops at groundbreakings when the project is finished (usually behind schedule and over budget).

The real solution is to privatize VA facilities and get the VA out of the service provider business. Just have them write the checks for the men and women who were willing to write a check for this country and sign it with their lives.

Rich Iott, Monclova

Burnard gets mail

Don, with regard to your column of April 17 (“Are you paying attention?”), I wish to congratulate you for paying attention. Too many people are unaware of what is being done to them. The shrinking middle class is one of the great dangers to our country. Thanks for your column.

Frank Eckart

Please, Mr Burnard, do yourself a favor so you don’t sound like an idiot every time you put pen to paper, and enroll in a basic economics class. You would be surprised what you would learn so you won’t read like a moron when you write your Hot Corner.

First Solar, Owens partner on work force training

First Solar is partnering with Owens Community College to begin a new training program April 27 for nearly 450 employees at its Perrysburg plant over the next year.

First Solar received a $1 million grant through Ohio’s Energizing Careers Grant program for alternative energy companies in September of 2010. The Workforce and Community Services staff at Owens assisted the company on its application for the grant and helped to develop and implement the training program.

“Since September, we’ve been designing and planning the program with the first course in continuous improvement and empowered career development,” said Eric Levos, training manager for North America at First Solar.

The training programs must include continuous improvement, supervisory leadership and technical skills development to qualify for the state grant, he said.

“One of First Solar’s core values is ‘continuous improvement’ along with a key behavior of self-awareness and learning,” said Todd Spangler, plant manager in Perrysburg.

“The continuous improvement workshop is a great tool to allow our production team to develop in these areas. Associate development opportunities such as this help First Solar to build a team capable of enabling a world powered by clean, affordable solar electricity,” he said.

The one-day workshop focuses on continuous improvement and empowered career development. The first workshops of 20 associates each were conducted April 27 and 28 to begin the process of training 400 production operators and about 40 people from finance, human resources, supply chain, and environmental health and safety areas.

Continuous improvement introduces associates to the origins of the subject with an application-based, systems-thinking stimulation with a primary measurement using statistical process control. It includes an exercise to build a simulated production line with Legos to understand how the entire system as a whole operates.

Carl Dettmer of Owens (left) and Eric Levos of First Solar prepare for the first training session in the learning center at First Solar.

“The hands-on exercise prepares them to think about how their work affects the whole production system. We want our people to understand systems thinking. It supports one of our core behaviors to think globally,” Levos said.

Empowered career development focuses on options for associates to strengthen their knowledge in their current position or strategies for taking control of their career and qualify for another position.

“We want to retain our associates and help them to advance and embrace life’s learning experiences. We encourage associates to take control of their career. We don’t want them to just have a job. We want them to have a career,” Levos said.

First Solar associates with at least six months of service qualify for up to $5,250 in tuition assistance per year for external education. They are encouraged to take courses and earn degrees at Owens or other colleges and universities, Levos said.

“First Solar has prided itself to grow its associates’ knowledge, skills and abilities faster than it is building its business by taking advantage of internal and external educational programs,” he said.

The training staff at First Solar has been working to train facilitators provided by Owens to educate its associates. Owens provides trainers for the customized training from more than 200 educators, administrators, and independent consultants all with business experience in addition to an educational background.

“We’ll find the right talent for the training desired by each client,” said Carl Dettmer, director of program development for Workforce and Community Services at Owens.

“We’ve taken it to a new level working with First Solar to make the community stronger through work force training.”

First Solar is the largest manufacturer of thin film solar modules, having expanded its manufacturing capacity to an annualized run rate of 62.6 MW per line in the fourth quarter of 2010. The company reports that it will reach a total expected capacity of more than 2.3 GW by the end of 2011.